GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Fostering Innovation

• 49251
  

  To say there is no risk-taking, no innnovation in Government is to ignore what happens below the executive level. Some of the best creative writing occurs at budget justification time. "How can I advance this rock one foot further on 8 inches of funding and management pushing the other way?"

  When we have money, we spend money. When we don't have money, "can do" people find a way to get enough done to make the effort worthwhile. The rest either "retire in place" out of frustration - or they leave and go to work at a think tank and talk bad about why the Government never does anything.

  Mike Posted April 23, 2008 9:52 AM
• 49013
  

  1. "Change is bad, even when it is good." I really don't know if that was sarcasm or the forlorn cry of a Luddite. All I can say is that the principle epitomized by Yin and Yang is still valid.

  2. Skeeter, this POTUS has gotten his budgetary way for the past 8 years. If you wish to point your finger about this check book balance, you need look no farther than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for both your hero and culprit. At least be real about your gripes.

  3. As for risk: attacking a foreign nation without provocation on the basis of non-existent weapons after an attack by someone else; ignoring our allies and incurring international condemnation, maintaining a "war" on two front with a peace-time reduced Army while totally restructuring said Army; heavily investing in unsubstantiated military R & D while giving huge deficit creating tax breaks; creating a prison system on foreign soil; and suspending our civil rights to include a trial by our peers and freedom from undue wiretaps, search, and seizure...

  I've never seen a riskier government in all my years. May I inquire as to your criteria? This administration has no peers when it comes to thinking outside the box.

  Tip off Posted April 21, 2008 11:37 AM
• 48608
  

  Change is bad, even when it is good.

  Federal Employee Posted April 15, 2008 1:36 PM
• 48582
  

  Risk is a term that says its calculated, however in govt risks are taken with no calculation, no understanding of the prize and a philosophy Oh Well we screwed up lets go get some more money from the taxpayers. Its like the loves and fishes the money just keeps multiplying, But don't ask me to be accountable or suffer any financial consequences. What do you bet the Census Bureau will all get their bonuses, and the next thing we'll hear is we need to be treated like the private sector

  Dan ketter Posted April 15, 2008 11:14 AM
• 48358
  

  How apropos, read article "Mismanagement, not technology, caused Census handheld trouble, auditors say" for a prime example.

  Tip off Posted April 10, 2008 1:28 PM
• 48273
  

  I don't agree with the premise of this post. Sure culture matters quite a bit and sure people can be set in their ways, but that's the wrong place to focus our attention. The way people lead change has a significant impact on whether others support or resist this new idea. Blaming the stuckees (to coin a term) misses the mark. We should focus on what the leaders do - and fail to do. Quite often they lead change by fiat and minimal involvement. Their idea of involvement is a 2-hour mind-numbing PowerPoint presentation with 10 minutes of Q&A.

  I focus on resistance to change and I found that people resist for any of three reasons. In simplest terms: they don't get it. . . they don't like it. . .and/or they don't like you. Any of those can stop a change dead in its tracks. Most change strategies focus on making sure people get it - that they understand what's going to happen. These strategies miss the emotional component (does this change excite or terrify people?). And most seriously, leaders fail to see the impact of their relationship with the stakeholders. When trust is low, people tune out or look for reasons why this change is yet another example of bad leadership. When trust is high, people tend to give the leaders the benefit of the doubt and actually volunteer to make the change a success.

  rick maurer Posted April 10, 2008 2:41 AM
• 48249
  

  Jeremiah, you are truly a prophet. May your voice be heard across the wilderness that passes for today's "discourse" on Federal management reform...

  Skepticus Posted April 9, 2008 6:18 PM
• 48174
  

  There is nothing in this article that has not been said ad nauseam over many years. It's all very well to chide managers for being risk-averse and for clinging to hierarchical organizational structures. The key issue has always been the "why" factor, i.e., the underlying reason(s) for these resistant-to-change mindsets. Simply put, the bureaucratic system's long-existing incentives drive the behavior that has been for so long so widely deplored. Federal managers are generally highly intelligent and quickly learn that the potential rewards for risk-taking behavior, given the bureaucratic culture in most if not all agencies, are far outweighed by the consequences of failure. That simple, true fact of bureaucratic life underpins much of the stick-in-the-mud behavior patterns that characterize the Federal career management cadre. Add to that the fact that such behavior continues to be routinely rewarded in any event by the "system." The same SES and lower graded managers who offer such steadfast passive resistance to change can count on receiving their regular performance awards and other signalling "pats on the bureaucratic back" without having to go through the messy, risk-taking, uncomfortable process of embarking upon uncharted programmatic waters of change. Why do we expect that, apparently out of sheer altruism, Federal managers will willingly go against the grain of human nature without clear, substantial incentives to do so? A few individuals might be quixotic enough in this regard, but the vast majority, faced with children's college tuition expenses, mortgages to pay, uncertain retirement prospects, etc., will give lip service to the mantra of change and let it go at that. Unless and until the bureaucratic rewards feedback mechanisms are changed - of which there is no likely prospect on the horizon - what we're going to get is more of the same deplored behavior that we've always had, as well as more repetitious articles such as this one.

  jeremiah Posted April 9, 2008 8:35 AM